Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 86, Supplement 1, pp 48–62 | Cite as

Behaviorally Bisexual Men and their Risk Behaviors with Men and Women

  • William A. ZuleEmail author
  • Georgiy V. Bobashev
  • Wendee M. Wechsberg
  • Elizabeth C. Costenbader
  • Curtis M. Coomes
Article

Abstract

Gay and bisexual men are often treated as a homogenous group; however, there may be important differences between them. In addition, behaviorally bisexual men are a potential source of HIV infection for heterosexual women. In this study, we compared 97 men who have sex with men only (MSM) to 175 men who have sex with men and women (MSMW). We also compared the 175 MSMW to 772 men who have sex with women only (MSW). Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to assess correlates of MSMW risk behaviors with men and with women as well as whether MSMW, compared with MSW, engaged in more risky behaviors with women. Compared with MSM, MSMW were less likely to be HIV-positive or to engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse. In contrast, MSMW were more likely than MSW to be HIV-positive and to engage in anal intercourse with their female partners; however, rates of unprotected anal intercourse were similar. The study findings suggest that there may be important differences in HIV risk behaviors and HIV prevalence between MSM and MSMW as well as between MSMW and MSW.

Keywords

Behaviorally bisexual men Men who have sex with men Risk behaviors HIV 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by grant no. U01da017373 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The interpretations and conclusions do not necessarily represent the position of NIDA or the U.S. Department of health and human services.

References

  1. 1.
    Normand JL, Lambert EY, Vlahov D. Understanding the dynamics of sexual transmission of HIV among drug-using populations: an integration of biological, behavioral, and environmental perspectives. J Urban Health. 2003; 80(4 Suppl 3): iii1–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McFarland W, Katz MH, Stoyanoff SR, et al. HIV incidence among young men who have sex with men—seven U.S. cities, 1994–2000 (Reprinted from MMWR, 2001;50:440-444). JAMA. 2001; 286(3): 297–299.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu SY, Peterman TA, Doll LS, Buehler JW, Curran JW. AIDS in bisexual men in the United States: epidemiology and transmission to women. Am J Public Health. 1992; 82(2): 220–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekstrand ML, Coates TJ, Guydish JR, Hauck WW, Collette L, Hulley SB. Are bisexually identified men in San Francisco a common vector for spreading HIV infection to women? Am J Public Health. 1994; 84(6): 915–919.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hightow LB, Leone PA, Macdonald PD, McCoy SI, Sampson LA, Kaplan AH. Men who have sex with men and women: a unique risk group for HIV transmission on North Carolina college campuses. Sex Transm Dis. 2006; 33(10): 585–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montgomery JP, Mokotoff ED, Gentry AC, Blair JM. The extent of bisexual behaviour in HIV-infected men and implications for transmission to their female sex partners. AIDS Care. 2003; 15(6): 829–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Leary A, Jones KT. Bisexual men and heterosexual women: how big is the bridge? How can we know? Sex Transm Dis. 2006; 33(10): 594–595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahn JG, Gurvey J, Pollack LM, Binson D, Catania JA. How many HIV infections cross the bisexual bridge? An estimate from the United States. AIDS. 1997; 11(8): 1031–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Millett G, Malebranche D, Mason B, Spikes P. Focusing “down low”: bisexual black men, HIV risk and heterosexual transmission. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005; 97(7 Suppl): 52S–59S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doll LS, Beeker C. Male bisexual behavior and HIV risk in the United States: synthesis of research with implications for behavioral interventions. AIDS Educ Prev. 1996; 8(3): 205–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalichman SC, Roffman RA, Picciano JF, Bolan M. Risk for HIV infection among bisexual men seeking HIV-prevention services and risks posed to their female partners. Health Psychol. 1998; 17(4): 320–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lichtenstein B. Secret encounters: black men, bisexuality, and AIDS in Alabama. Med Anthropol Q. 2000; 14(3): 374–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKirnan DJ, Stokes JP, Doll L, Burzette RG. Bisexually active men: social characteristics and sexual behavior. J Sex Res. 1995; 32(1): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers HF, Javanbakht M, Martinez M, Obediah S. Psychosocial predictors of risky sexual behaviors in African American men: implications for prevention. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003; 15(1 Suppl A): 66–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stokes JP, McKirnan DJ, Doll L, Burzette RG. Female partners of bisexual men: what they don’t know might hurt them. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1996; 20(2): 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shehan DA, LaLota M, Johnson DF, et al. HIV/STD risks in young men who have sex with men who do not disclose their sexual orientation—six U.S. cities, 1994–2000. (Reprinted from MMWR. 2003;52:81–86,). JAMA. 2003; 289(8): 975–977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padian N, Marquis L, Francis DP, et al. Male-to-female transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA. 1987; 258(6): 788–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powers KA, Poole C, Pettifor AE, Cohen MS. Rethinking the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008; 8(9): 553–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harawa NT, Williams JK, Ramamurthi HC, Bingham TA. Perceptions towards condom use, sexual activity, and HIV disclosure among HIV-positive African American men who have sex with men: implications for heterosexual transmission. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(4): 682–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stall R, Paul JP, Greenwood G, et al. Alcohol use, drug use and alcohol-related problems among men who have sex with men: The Urban Men’s Health Study. Addiction. 2001; 96(11): 1589–1601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woody GE, VanEtten-Lee ML, McKirnan D, et al. Substance use among men who have sex with men: comparison with a national household survey. JAIDS. 2001; 27(1): 86–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beckett M, Burnam A, Collins RL, Kanouse DE, Beckman R. Substance use and high-risk sex among people with HIV: a comparison across exposure groups. AIDS Behav. 2003; 7(2): 209–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woody GE, Donnell D, Seage GR, et al. Non-injection substance use correlates with risky sex among men having sex with men: data from HIVNET. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999; 53(3): 197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frosch D, Shoptaw S, Huber A, Rawson RA. Sexual HIV risk among gay and bisexual male methamphetamine abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1996; 13(6): 483–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dolezal C, Carballo-Diéguez A, Nieves-Rosa L, Díaz F. Substance use and sexual risk behavior: understanding their association among four ethnic groups of Latino men who have sex with men. J Subst Abuse. 2000; 11(4): 323–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baseman J, Ross M, Williams M. Sale of sex for drugs and drugs for sex: an economic context of sexual risk behavior for STDs. Sex Transm Dis. 1999; 26(8): 444–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Latkin CA, Hua W, Forman VL. The relationship between social network characteristics and exchanging sex for drugs or money among drug users in Baltimore, MD, USA. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(11): 770–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiser SD, Dilworth SE, Neilands TB, Cohen J, Bangsberg DR, Riley ED. Gender-specific correlates of sex trade among homeless and marginally housed individuals in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(4): 736–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rietmeijer CA, Wolitski RJ, Fishbein M, Corby NH, Cohn DL. Sex hustling, injection drug use, and non-gay identification by men who have sex with men: associations with high-risk sexual behaviors and condom use. Sex Transm Dis. 1998; 25(7): 353–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuyper LM, Lampinen TM, Li K, et al. Factors associated with sex trade involvement among male participants in a prospective study of injection drug users. Sex Transm Infec. 2004; 80(6): 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kral AH, Lorvick J, Ciccarone D, et al. HIV prevalence and risk behaviors among men who have sex with men and inject drugs in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2005; 82(1 Suppl 1): i43–i50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newman PA, Rhodes F, Weiss RE. Correlates of sex trading among drug-using men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94(11): 1998–2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    El-Bassel N, Schillng RF, Gilbert L, Faruque S, Irwin KL, Edlin BR. Sex trading and psychological distress in a street-based sample of low-income urban men. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2000; 32(3): 259–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weber AE, Craib KJ, Chan K, et al. Sex trade involvement and rates of human immunodeficiency virus positivity among young gay and bisexual men. Int J Epidemiol. 2001; 30(6): 1449–1454; discussion: 1455–1446.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methamphetamine use and HIV risk behaviors among heterosexual men—preliminary results from five northern California counties, December 2001–November 2003. MMWR. 2006; 55(10): 273–277.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zule WA, Costenbader EC, Meyer WJ Jr, Wechsberg WM. Methamphetamine use and risky sexual behaviors during heterosexual encounters. Sex Transm Dis. 2007; 34(9): 689–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zule WA, Desmond DP. An ethnographic comparison of HIV risk behaviors among heroin and methamphetamine injectors. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1999; 25(1): 1–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Siegel K, Schrimshaw EW, Lekas HM, Parsons JT. Sexual behaviors of non-gay identified non-disclosing men who have sex with men and women. Arch Sex Behav. 2008; 37(5): 720–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Martinson FE, et al. Heterosexually transmitted HIV infection among African Americans in North Carolina. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006; 41(5): 616–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Durant T, McDavid K, Hu X, Sullivan P, Janssen R, Fenton K. Racial/Ethnic disparities in diagnoses of HIV/AIDS—33 states, 2001–2005 (Reprinted from MMWR. 2006;56:189–193). JAMA. 2007; 297(15): 1647–1649.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems. 1997; 44(2): 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Heckathorn DD, Semaan S, Broadhead R, Hughes JJ. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS Behav. 2002; 6(1): 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iguchi MY, Ober AJ, Berry SH, et al. Simultaneous recruitment of drug users and men who have sex with men in the United States and Russia using respondent driven sampling: Sampling methods and implications. J Urban Health. 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Metzger DS, Koblin B, Turner C, et al. Randomized controlled trial of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing: utility and acceptability in longitudinal studies. HIVNET Vaccine Preparedness Study Protocol Team. Am J Epidemiol. 2000; 152(2): 99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simoes AA, Bastos FI, Moreira RI, Lynch KG, Metzger DS. Acceptability of audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) among substance abusers seeking treatment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 82(Suppl 1): S103–S107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Simoes AA, Bastos FI, Moreira RI, Lynch KG, Metzger DS. A randomized trial of audio computer and in-person interviewing to assess HIV risk among drug and alcohol users in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006; 30(3): 237–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 158(3): 280–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D’Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistic in Medicine. 1998; 17(19): 2265–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984; 79(387): 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sandfort TGM, Dodge B. “And then there was the Down Low”: introduction to Black and Latino male bisexualities. Arch Sex Behav. 2008; 37(5): 675–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tillerson K. Explaining racial disparities in HIV/AIDS incidence among women in the U.S.: a systematic review. Statistics in Medicine. 2008; 27(20): 4132–4143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. Zule
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Georgiy V. Bobashev
    • 2
  • Wendee M. Wechsberg
    • 1
  • Elizabeth C. Costenbader
    • 3
  • Curtis M. Coomes
    • 1
  1. 1.Substance Abuse Treatment Evaluation and Invention Research ProgramRTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Statistics and Epidemiology divisionRTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Family Health InternationalDurhamUSA
  4. 4.RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations